Ten Concerns with an

Obamacare “Stability” Bill

1. Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Coverage. As Republicans themselves correctly argued back in 2010,
any provision preventing taxpayer dollars from funding abortion coverage must occur in legislation itself—
executive orders are by their nature insufficient. Therefore, any “stability” bill must have protections above
and beyond current law to ensure that taxpayer dollars do not fund abortion coverage.

2. Potential Budget Gimmick. Press reports indicate that House Republican leaders have considered
adjusting the budgetary baseline to fund a “stability” package. Congress should not attempt to violate
existing law and create artificial “savings” to fund a reinsurance program.

3. Insurers Still Owe the Treasury Billions. The Government Accountability Office concluded in 2016
that the Obama Administration violated the law by prioritizing payments to insurers over payments to the
U.S. Treasury. The Trump Administration and House Republicans should focus first on reclaiming the
billions insurers haven’t repaid, rather than giving them more taxpayer cash in a “stability” package.

4. Doesn’t Repeal Obamacare Now. Instead of repealing the onerous regulations that caused health
insurance rates to more than double from 2013-17, a “stability” bill would lower premiums by giving
insurers additional subsidies—throwing money at a problem rather than fixing it.

5. Undermines Obamacare Repeal Later. House Republican leaders reportedly support a bill (H.R. 4666)
by Rep. Ryan Costello (R-PA). That bill appropriates “stability” funds to insurers for three years (2019
through 2021), eliminating any incentive for the next Congress to consider “repeal-and-replace” legislation.

6. Budgetary Cliff Opens Door to Perpetual Bailouts. Whereas Obamacare’s reinsurance program phased
out over three years—with funding of $10 billion in 2014, $6 billion in 2015, and $4 billion in 2016—H.R.
4666 contains $10 billion in funding for each of three years. This funding cliff would create a push for
additional “stability” funding thereafter—turning the Costello bill into a perpetual bailout machine.

7. Bails Out Insurers’ Bad Decisions. During the period 2015-17, most insurers assumed they would
continue to receive cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments, despite growing legal challenges over their
constitutionality. Before even considering appropriating CSR funds, Congress should first investigate
insurers’ bad business decisions to assume unconstitutional payments would continue in perpetuity.

8. Bails Out Insurance Commissioners’ Bad Decisions. Likewise, in the summer and fall of 2016,
virtually all state insurance commissioners failed to consider whether the incoming Administration would
unilaterally withdraw CSR payments—which the Trump Administration did last year. Before making CSR
payments, Congress first should investigate insurance commissioners’ gross negligence.

9. Doesn’t Hold Obama Officials Accountable. In 2016, the House Energy and Commerce and Ways and
Means Committees released a 158-page report highlighting abuses over the unconstitutional appropriation
of CSRs by the Obama Administration. Since then, neither committee has acted—contempt citations,
criminal referrals, or other similar actions—to uphold Congress’ constitutional prerogatives.

10. Could Undermine Second Amendment Rights. Last week, health insurer Aetna made a sizable
contribution to fund this month’s gun control march in Washington. Some may question why insurers need
billions of dollars in taxpayer cash if they can contribute to liberal organizations, and whether some of this
“stability” package will end up in the hands of groups opposed to Americans’ fundamental liberties.